Young Earth Creationists, a subset of Christians, believe in a young earth, followed by a literal global flood based on the belief that Scripture is written as history. (reference here) Often, in comments, discussion forums, and discussions in general, they will refer to "overwhelming physical evidence" that backs up their theological belief.

What phsyical evidence to they teach, or believe can be interpreted as consistent with the idea of a global flood?

5 Answers
5

The Answers in Genesis website has an article that covers historical records of the flood -
Comparison of secular historical records, where they look at 200 flood traditions from across the world. 95% of the traditions had common elements with the Genesis account and described a worldwide flood.

Answers in Genesis also provides a number of articles describing geological evidence for a worldwide flood: Geological Links

+1 Answers in Genesis is a really interesting site. Of course, even with archaeological evidence, some people will always be unwilling to believe. I'm reminded of Jesus before the elders: "If you are the Christ, tell us." But he said to them, "If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I ask you, you will not answer." (Luke 22:67-68 ESV)
–
user991Nov 17 '11 at 17:50

If you pick up any modern textbook on geology you will find plenty of explanations of sea fossils in geologic strata and all sorts of other "evidence" of a flood. Evidence is often times only evidence to a person who has already accepted the conclusions.

In my experience, I see that the same modern geological understanding that rejects the idea of a flood allows people to find oil and minerals all over the world, to make accurate predictions about the stability of the tectonic plates, and to correlate perfectly with evidence from archeology, paleontology, astrology, and meteorology. I look at this "big picture" and conclude that the case for modern geology is strong and that for a flood is negligible; research the subject and make up your own mind.

I love the basic idea of this answer, but I feel like it should be answering a different question, or maybe this one--unless you're arguing that there was no flood at all--then any of these questions is just as suitable. Also, some sources would be a bonus.
–
FlimzySep 2 '11 at 2:57

I can provide evidence that suggests a global flood when taken together, but you can never really prove something that happened in the past.

Fossils. The fact that so many fossils are found, and often in large collections, is kind of odd if you believe the flood didn't happen. Normally dead animals rot away, are eaten by other animals, or otherwise have their remains scattered by the elements. Flood conditions that bury the animals whole, are very desirable in producing fossils (you have to have the right minerals from soil and water encasing an object before it will fossilize).. Just think for a second how silly it would be to say that the larger fossil collections were not caused by a flood or simular catastrophe, that's how the arceologist explain allot of them, by some sort of local flood for each deposit. So why not accept the global Flood? That explanation was written well before anybody had a reason to explain them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_siteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fossil_Parks

History. While I know there are definitely exceptions, all around the world ancient civilizations record a global flood (but it of course is usually dismissed as part of their mythology). Interestingly enough many of them include a story about people in a boat with names very similar to Noah and his family. http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/flood.html

The geologic column, and fossil record. It just happens that the order of materials in the geologic column, and the order fossils are generally* found, are the order those materials hydraulically sort into if mixed in flowing water and allowed to settle. (Don't take my word for it, try it!)

Polystrate fossils. That is to say, fossils that that span multiple layers in the geologic column. All over the world entire forests of trees are found petrified joining multiple geologic era's, so either they stood still for millions of years while the layers formed around them so they could be petrified. (In the upright position, without rotting), or they were petrified by being buried in some catastrophic event.

To Be Continued later..... **

*And don't be fooled, although I hear claims to the opposite all the time, fossils do end up in layers they supposedly shouldn't be in frequently.

**Also I am staying on topic and only talking about some of the evidence of a global flood, others may come and hijack this thread to talk about their old earth 'science', I'll address those in the appropriate threads.

Could you source this? its hardly definitive without some kind of reference.
–
wax eagle♦Aug 27 '11 at 16:09

@wax eagle.Is there something specific you feel needs a source? The part about their being large groups of fossils together (#1) ? The part that the poster below me gave details statistics for (#2)? The part you can try yourself(#3)? or the Polystrate fossils(#4)?
–
2tim424Aug 27 '11 at 19:30

1

I think 1 would be the most important as its a claim that you should substantiate. 3 is also something that should be substantiated (i can try it myself, but it doesn't tell me that the earth looks like that). 2 is fine. 4 should at least have a link to evidence of a polystrate fossil example.
–
wax eagle♦Aug 27 '11 at 19:46

"but you can never really prove something that happened in the past" careful now...
–
Marc Gravell♦Sep 20 '11 at 12:07

@MarcGravell that was special just for you Marc. :)
–
2tim424Sep 20 '11 at 17:42

I am no archaeologist even today, but even as an child I found one piece of evidence to contribute.

When I was a kid my dad always used to complain that he could never find his tools. That's because half of them were strewn about in the woods where I had absconded with them. He never could keep a hatchet around, but one of the other tools I loved was a sledge hammer. Where we lived there wasn't much dirt, maybe 6" if you were lucky, then you hit limestone bedrock. I used to smash every bit of rock I could get loose into bits.

Why? Because inside every single sample were fossils ... specifically fossils of sea creatures. I collected literally hundreds of sea-shell fossils.

We lived on on the top of of a ridge at 7,500 feet elevation in the middle of the Rocky Mountains in the middle of a continent.

This answer doesn't really say how your observations as a child contribute to the archeological evidence. It could be improved by connecting the ideas, instead of forcing the reader to by inference.
–
dleyva3Aug 29 '11 at 7:52

1

@dleyva3: I actually thought the opposite would be acceptable in this case. Rather than presenting my conclusion or what I deduced from the evidence, I just stated a piece of evidence. Do you not think that's appropriate based on the OP's wording of the question?
–
Caleb♦Aug 29 '11 at 7:55

Or where you lived used to have a lake and what you thought were sea creatures were from an ancient lake bed. Do you have any samples of what you found?
–
DForck42Aug 31 '11 at 18:33

3

@Caleb: your sea animal fossils could also be remainders of a local flood (i.e. this part was under water at this time, but others were above sea levels), couldn't they?
–
Paŭlo EbermannAug 31 '11 at 18:48

Walt Brown

Has done a significant amount of research and study on this topic. He graduated from MIT and ended up retiring from the Air Force as a Colonel.

I think that you'll find his theory incredibly compelling, His Website.

Basically he says that the earth was created relatively flat. Not flat in the sense of non-spherical, but flat in the sense of no mountains, valleys or oceans. Then the flood happened and caused some major devastation.

It ends with the idea that the oceans are the evidence of the flood, the mountains are the evidence of the flood, the fossils, the tilt of the earth's axis, the seasons, all of this is evidence of what happened in Walts theory. It really explains everything in a very logical argument..

For a reason, it's false and incorrect. Just because you recieved 4 upvotes doesn't make it right.
–
SvenAug 31 '11 at 21:04

@Sven, I never said it was right. I basically stated what Walt Brown has done. Just because you refute it, doesn't make it wrong.
–
Ecommerce ConsultantAug 31 '11 at 21:15

14

You find his theory incredibly compelling and you think he explains everything in a logical argument. You could have mentioned, that almost any other scientists (including a lot of christians) disagree with his work. This whole site is not going to accomplish anything, if refuted theories are at the top.
–
SvenAug 31 '11 at 21:19